>> this is a victory for president obama, if it is real. >> van, it seems like nancy pelosi is ready to order the mission accomplished banner. but the russians have offered us not a parachute but a knapsack. a knapsack that will never open. >> i think the world is happy we are off the path to war. everybody is giving john kerry a hard time. i would rather us to blunder on the path to peace than to stumble onto the path of war. >> if this were from real, good actors i would be happy to consider it. >> we've got two former presidential candidates and two former senators -- both the same

person -- with us tonight. democratic former senator, now independent, joe lieberman, he supports the strike. you've got to be happy now. you've got to be on president obama's team now, you're happy, right? >> leading question. >> if there's not going to be a military attack, that's a good thing. so if the president is willing to step down for whatever reason, look, he, he went to the congress because he didn't want to do this. if he wanted to do it, he said he had the power to do it. and he just decided not to. and you consider the fact whether it's on immigration or health care or doma, he's done things he didn't have the power to do. now he had the power to do it and he didn't want to do it. >> you're on team obama now. >> i'm on team let's not broaden this war and let's not put a complicated military situation

into the hands of someone who can't handle the situation. >> why after two years, 100,000 people dead, why is pausing yet again to dither on this conflict the right decision. >> i think the president made the right decision when he grew the red line and then after he said we had proof that chemical weapons were used to kill almost 1500 innocents, including 426 children by assad in syria that he was going to take military action. i was really surprised and disappointed when he decided to toss it to congress. he was right. he had the legal authority to do it himself. if he had, i think the american people would have been happy now. >> should he attack now? should he attack now without congress? >> i, well, i think now that russia has made this offer, even though it's hard to take it seriously coming from russia

which hasn't been our friend, look at the snowden matter. >> right. >> john kerry said last week three tried very hard to reach an agreement with assad years ago and decided he was a liar. >> i'm saying it's hard to take the proposal by russia seriously, but it's important enough that we've got to challenge them to be serious and see if syria really will, with international supervision and penalties, get rid of all their chemical weapons. if they did that, it would be a tremendous accomplishment. but i think the president still has to focus on the fact if nothing happens -- >> the bottom line here is we have no national security interest. >> we don't have a national security interest when children are being chemically -- >> then we should be in darfur, 50 other countries around the world. that is not a reason. i wish, i wish, that sh the

point. the point is we have no national security interest because the two sides of this conflict are both enemies of the united states. we have al qaeda who is definitely the dominant rebel force on one side and we have on the other side hezbollah, russia and assad. >> you are a leader on syria, you were a big supporter and author of the accountability act. and now you have seemed to have completely disappeared. i want to show you these images that have shocked the world. look at these children. they're twitching. they're dying. what if one of the mothers of those children called this station and said to you, why won't you help me? why won't you help my children. >> the reason the united states and i think joe will agree with me on this. we may disagree on where we come out, but the u.s. uses military forces for one reason and one reason only. it's in our national security interest. >> we have no moral obligation. >> when it come does a

humanitarian situation we have other obligations. it's about political sanctions, economic sanctions. when the president used the accountability act as reasons he misled the american people. >> i know you. we go back a little ways. we've had some conservations about values and social conservatism. i don't understand how you square your conscience with not going in where hundreds of thousands of died. >> they're fighting for their freedom incidentally, which is what america's supposed to be about. >> are you worried this will be another rwanda? >> this didn't start out -- >> that's right. i called for military force months ago. >> these were syrian patriot no, sir were sick of the dictator.

>> agreed. agreed. >> we held back and al qaeda came in. i don't think al qaeda is the dominant force in the opposition. i think from all i know it's the syrian people who want to change from assad. and they deserve -- >> i want to give him a chance to say something, because i want to double down on peace. i don't want to double down on war. i think we have diplomatic options we haven't exhausted. my quarrel with the president hall week long is we're rushing to war. some people want to double down on war. it seems like you're doubling down on nothing. if you were the president, what would you do? >> first off, go back and look at the debates that happened 18 months ago. get involved, give them -- >> we had an interest then, but we don't have an interest now? >> wait a second. >> how much do we have an interest then and not now? >> everything has changed. >> everything has changed. the people who are the rebels in syria right now are not the same people that we.

>> that's right. >> that we could have been partners with 18 months ago. >> but it's not going to get better if we hang back. if we get involved in one level and support the moderates there, and there are moderates there who are our friends, then they'll have a better opportunity to control the country when assad goes. right now, i think we've got to hang tough. and tonight, the president's got a real challenge, but because of all of the twists and turns of the story, but he's got a great opportunity to tell people why he thinks it's worth us carrying out limited but decisive attacks. >> what does he need to say tonight? >> i think he needs to say, one, we can't handle every problem in the world. but americans, you know, we have a declaration of independence that talks about the self-evident truth that we got from our creator, the rights to life and liberty. and these people in syria have been deprived of both those

points. but here's the point. if you let a dictator mass murder his people and turn away from it, he's going to keep going. and every other madman is going to keep going. >> haven't we learned any lessons? >> there are dictators who murder their.people. we've seen it for decades. the united states does not step in unless there's a nag security interest. we've stepped in in other way, but not militarily. we are broadening, you want to talk about not being the cop on the beat. you want to talk about something that you and folks that have been advocating for us to have, make peace not war. we've now opened up pandora's box as to military use. it's a bad idea. >> i want you to respond to this. my quarrel with the president is, i think he did two things right and one thing wrong. he was right to say this is an outrage and we're not going to

let babies get gassed. >> and do nothing about it? >> i think that was right. i think he was wrong to rush into a war posture without talking to congress, without bringing in the u.n., without exhausting -- >> he did that when he set the r red line. and he set the red line -- >> months ago. >> because he waited, we now have a new opening. do you disagree that the president, by putting those warships out there and waiting, don't you agree that he created an opening now for peace? you're saying that the president has done nothing right this whole crisis? >> if we believe putin and assad are legitimate actors in the diplomatic stage. that's who we got. i'm perfectly willing to let this play out. i want us to not strike syria, because i think streaking syria, at this point in time, will create a real problem for us

militarily with russia, with potentially others in the region. we are taking, and i think joe will agree with me on this one. the whole syria conflict at this point, has taken our eye off the ball. and the ball is iran. syria is a puppet state of iran. >> that's right. iran's watching. >> it's the biggest body blow we could land to iran. he's their only ally in the arab world. and even this proposal, which if it works for russia will be a good thing. the price of it will be that assad will stay there and iran will still have its number one ally in the arab world. >> all right. let's continue this over in the next segment. there are a lot of creative solutions that don't involve bombing and killing people apparently. >> yes, there are and we'll talk about it when we get back. thank you very much.

just by talking to a helmet. it grabbed the patient's record before we even picked him up. it found out the doctor we needed was at st. anne's. wiggle your toes. [ driver ] and it got his okay on treatment from miles away. it even pulled strings with the stoplights. my ambulance talks with smoke alarms and pilots and stadiums. but, of course, it's a good listener too. [ female announcer ] today cisco is connecting the internet of everything. so everything works like never before. man: sometimes it's like we're still in college. but with a mortgage. and the furniture's a lot nicer. and suddenly, the most important person in my life is someone i haven't even met yet. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. as you plan your next step,

we'll help you get there.

welcome back. tonight president obama addresses the nation about syria. he's hitting the pause button on the military strikes. that gives us time for some creative solutions. we should keep the warships parked off of there. but what about cyberattacks, what about anything? it's either war or nothing. if there were a dome over syria, so it was not about bomb or

don't bomb, what are something some of the creative things that we could do without war? >> unfortunately, if there were a dome over syria there's nothing we could do to stop the bloodshed. finally, the patriots, the freedom fighter syrians have gotten help from outside. but they're still getting decimated. >> this is america. you're saying there's nothing we can do. it's either tomahawk missiles or nothing. >> but the dome doesn't exist, van. that's fantasy land. this is reality. >> let me say something about the dome. >> van jones dome. >> the dome is unreal, but what that really reminds us of is that their neighbors their, israel, iraq, jordan, lebanon, they're all being badly affected. >> this is a crisis, how can we get out of this without bombs.

you tell us. >> that as why rick santorum during the presidential campaign said we should be arming the rebels, supporting them militarily, we should be supporting them economically. >> that's all in the past. we didn't do what you wanted so we just give up. >> because a lot of folks -- hello? >> hello? >> a lot of folks had no interest in this. >> you can admit you're wrong. >> i'm going to shock you. i think the democrats were wrong for not taking syria more seriously earlier. but i think it's wrong and i'm giving you an opportunity now. i don't want to go to war. i think there are a lot of things we could do that would get us ot of the situation without war. are you somebody who's got ideas about it, but i don't hear anybody talking about what can we do? >> it's very difficult right now. when you look at the rebels and the composition of the rebel forces, you're seeing on youtube how rebel forces are these

radical al qaeda folks are killing off other rebel leaders and are doing atrocities to the public also. >> but if you were president -- >> we are going to come on the side of them, help them. >> that's terrible. help us. >> but we can't. no, what we have to do is do what we should have done from the very beginning, is let's identify and protect and defend the legitimate forces. protect them, arming them. et cetera. >> you've been using the word war. nobody's talking about war. president obama's not talking about war. he's not talking about any american boots on the ground. he's talking about limited, precise attacks. >> you're not that naïve, you know even though president obama promises no boots on the ground, we go in with planes there's

boots on the ground. this is a lot bigger than he thinks. >> what the president could have done when he decided to send it to congress in taking the action limited that he has in mind is not a precedent. president reagan did it in g grenada. you know, president clinton went into bosnia and people could argue we had no national security interest there, but a lot of people were getting slaughtered by the serbs at that point. >> i think the president going to congress is the best thing that happened, because it gave us time. you don't agree with me. >> here's my concern when he did it. i don't think he had to do it. he himself said he had the legal authority to take action himself as commander in chief under the war powers resolution. he took an enormous risk and unfortunately he's in a quagmire now. the risk was that congress would say no. >> now they're both be being delayed and the u.n. is a forum

where -- i don't understand how you can say it's a bad thing. the delay gave us time. >> i'm not a great poll watcher. buff the american public is overwhelmingly against the president. they are against military action. they do not see any positive benefit for the united states getting involved in a war between two radical elements in which neither are our friends. >> now i want to quote you from the new testament, when the sound of the trumpet is uncertain, who will follow into battle? i think people are so confused about what's going on here. >> the president says he has to do it, but then he goes to congress. >> there was authority for a limited strike without american boots on the ground, particularly if we had support from other -- >> let me ask you -- go ahead. >> here's the president says we need to do it, but i'm going to ask congress. we need to strike, but it's not

going to be decisive. the american people are saying what the heck? if we do act, and the iranians or somebody else says you've drawn a line in the sand for us and we're going to act back, now we've put the united states in a much broader war with a president who is first of all let's be clear. he built a coalition to -- >> a coalition? let's walk through the list. he got russia and china to be with us against iran. >> stop right there. whoa! >> forget libya. >> stop at iran. is iran pursuing the nuclear weapons program? they have drawn -- >> do you want a war? we're doing cyber attack. we're doing an embargo. >> we have around the a red line with iran and we have done nothing publicly. >> this is a very good

opportunity -- >> this is a very good opportunity to talk about the u.n. the u.n. -- no one except maybe except ben trusts the russians in this new plan to seize chemical weapons from assad. i fear that a lot of people trust the u.n. to do that. the u.n. doesn't have a terribly effective record. are you worried? should the american people trust u.n. to oversee this new rug plan? >> the u.n. works sometimes. other times it doesn't. the record is mixed. the question is what passes in the u.n.? >> nothing if you're russia and china. >> france tabled a resolution in the security council today that basically embased the russian proposal that the syrians get rid of their weapons with international supervision and that if they didn't, then force was authorized by the u.n. security council. i thought that was great. it called russia's bluff. what do you think russia did? they said that was unacceptable.

they don't want a mandatory resolution with teeth in it. they want it to be a presidential statement of kind of appealing to syria. >> senator santorum, do you -- >> credibility with this entire proposal. >> do you trust the u.n.? >> no. >> pick an issue. the answer is no. >> exactly right. >> 172 successful peace keeping missions and negotiations. listen, we always focus -- >> cambodia, bosnia -- >> we focus on the places the u.n. has not been able to change human nature. we are in a much safer world with the u.n. than without it. >> that is a total inaccuracy. >> look right here. >> i have a list too, of atrocities they have taken responsibility for and not changed. the world feel very good about itself when it allows the u.n. to take oh. it feels like it is doing something. it is false security. >> here what i don't understand.

>> when george w. bush brought in the united nations, people thought that was a good thing. trying to bring in the global community. i thought that you wanted us to build a big global coalition. i think we have a motel now to do it. why do we have it? one, we went to congress and two, as much as we do not trust the russians for their own interests, they are moving. why are you mad at congress and the u.n.? >> name the countries that are for the united states getting involved militarily in syria. >> apparently, there is france -- >> militarily? >> the people that want us to -- >> about 15 that signed that statement. >> final countries for action. >> but not military action. >> there's a big difference between action and mill action. i'm for action. i'm just not for a military strike. particularly one that is not decisive. >> here's the problem. i think a military strike today will hurt assad. i think that's the reason why at

least in words he's accepted this russian pro postal. i don't believe him for a minute. i'll believe it when i see it. i think he's scared of a strike. we're going to hit hit command and control. >> we strike assad. we knock out a few command and control operations. then where do we go? >> we give more support to the syrian opposition. because they will have a tremendous boost in morale. >> why can't we do that without striking? >> we have to strike him because he uses chemical weapons. if we don't, he'll use them again. >> and you don't have any fear or concern that any other country will as a result of us striking syria, do something to in96th themselves even in that conflict? >> they might but you know, when, we can't act out of fear of what might happen. we're strong. we're still the strongest country in the world. >> we're not. we're not acting like a leader. we're acting like someone who said, don't knock this off my

shoulder and you do. so i have a fight back. >> the shoulder was the high moral ground. >> it wasn't a high moral ground. >> hitler, saddam hussein, assad have used chemical weapons. 200 say no. >> chemical weapons is very different than wmd that iran is working on. that's where we should focus our attention. >> thanks to joe heeb and rick santorum, a great debate. we appreciate it. next, we cease fire. there something important to agree on. not just the two of us but the whole country. [ male announcer ] these days, a small business can save by sharing. like carpools... polly wants to know if we can pick her up. yeah, we can make room. yeah. [ male announcer ] ...office space. yes, we're loving this communal seating. it's great. [ male announcer ] the best thing to share? a data plan. at&t mobile share for business. one bucket of data for everyone on the plan, unlimited talk and text on smart phones. now, everyone's in the spirit of sharing. hey, can i borrow your boat this weekend?

no. [ male announcer ] share more. save more. at&t mobile share for business. ♪ at&t mob i don't know.business. how did you get here? [ speaking in russian ] look, look, look... you probably want to get away as much as we do. with priceline express deals, you can get a fabulous hotel without bidding. think of the rubles you'll save. with one touch, fun in the sun. i like fun. well, that went exactly i as planned.. really?

tonight on "crossfire," we've been debating about what to do on syria. now we're going to call a cease fire. i think, i want to come back to a point i made. i think, i have to admit, you have been right about something. you've been out there two years saying we have to do something about syria. i hate your solution. i don't like the war. but you are pointing to the right problem. and i think a lot of people on the left were ducking it and weren't dealing with it. what my lesson is, even when we don't agree, we have to listen to each other more than we did. >> i appreciate that. and i will return a favor and say, look, i don't agree with solutions eat but at least you've been consistent. a lot of people have been talking about president obama's solution morally superior to

president bush's. and you hold the same standard. that says a lot about your credibility. >> of two us, we agreed and the world didn't come to an end. >> here's another thing we agree on. your opinion matters. you can weigh in on our fire back question on facebook or twitter. should the u.s. trust russia's offer to rid syria of chemical weapon. right now 41% of you say yes. 59% say no. >> the debate continues online at cnn.com/crossfire. you can go to facebook and twitter. from the left, i'm van jones. >> from the right, i'm s.e. "outfront" starts right now. >> the most important speech of president obama's second term, convincing an extremely skemt cal nation that action on syria is necessary now. we count down to that